Doctorate Studies in Kenya: Issues on Quality

By Laban P Ayiro Senior Lecturer, Education Leadership And Policy Studies Moi University Evelyn Jepkemei Senior Assistant Director Kenya Institute Of Education James Sang Chief Admin Officer, Moi University

Doctorate Education and Quality Assurance :

Theoretical Underpinnings
A highly skilled workforce operating at the frontiers of knowledge creation and professional practice is key to Kenyas achievement of the Vision 2030 Expansion of the village: citizen participation, particularly from underrepresented minority groups, should be a priority in fields that are essential to our nations success. Interdisciplinary research preparation and education are central to future competitiveness because knowledge creation and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines. Kenyan Universities must be able to tap and attract the brightest and best talent globally. Quality doctoral training is the driver of Kenyan Research capabilities: success and efforts to evaluate and improve all aspects of the quality of the doctoral studies must be advanced and supported in order to foster innovation.

Introduction to study
Doctoral education, the highest level of academic qualification, is the foundation for the research and development pursuits of a country. The term doctorate comes from the Latin docere, meaning to teach, which in turn comes from the Medieval Latin licentia docendi, or the license to teach. it proclaims that the recipient is worthy of being listened to as an equal by the appropriate university faculty (Phillips and Pugh 2005:20-21). A PhD is therefore as much about the learning experience as the production of a thesis There is some demand, for rigid set of guidelines as to what a PhD should entail. The number of graduates with a PhD qualification in Kenya and other countries has grown exponentially in recent years and there is still the absence of a yardstick against which appropriate success can be measured (Burnard 2001: 159).

Quality
The degree of excellence The relative goodness cannot be described in a subtle way using quantitative data can focus different aspects: prerequisites, processes, results and effects is a relative concept - fitness for purpose - value for money will have different concrete meaning depending upon what you focus

However quality in this study adopts the meaning applied by CHE, that is consisting of a synthesis of conformity, adaptability and continuous improvement. It is often defined as fitness for purpose and also standard based.

Purpose of the PhD

PhD is inseparably related to training in research so assessment of the creative output s includes a judgment in the candidates ability to conduct independent research successful research at doctoral level must result in a contribution to knowledge that is realised when it is communicated effectively to others in the field. Arguably, the acid test in this dimension might be that others working in the field need to be able to learn from the creative output if it is to be acceptable as a contribution to knowledge (Jibril 2006).

a doctoral examination typically takes the form of the candidate defending argument set out in the thesis. a distinction between a creative work that is presented without explanation or critique and one presented with an attendant critical analysis (Ayiro, 2010)

Quality assurance Issues

Oral examination o institutions vary in respect of their use of the viva as an essential or nonessential component of the doctoral examination process o the quality control of the examination process is its reliability and its fairness. o the viva enabling the examiners to decide the viability of the intellectual position and candidates understanding of it through oral, cross-examination (Green and Powell, 2005). International perspectives The processes of doctoral study differ across international boundaries that what may be expected in terms of the actual examination, if not in terms of the written submission, will also differ (Green and Powell, 2005) guidance for external examiners would require greater contextualization. In many European countries, a public defence of the thesis is required, assuring the originality of the work and ability to defend arguments. In most of the universities treat the final defence as a board room activity. Taking an international perspective, it is not a universal requirement for doctoral candidates to defend their thesis (either in public or in a closed examination) in order to be awarded the degree.

Methodology
The research was carried over a period of six months, designed as a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews ( 60 academics and 52 ongoing PhD and PhD graduates were interviewed from 10 niversities in Kenya) Secondary sources (relevant international and national (Kenya) policy documents, and publications, reports from CHE to generate data.

purposive sampling method was used to identify subjects for

interviews across four academic blocks of the university.

Methodology
Data analysis and interpretation was done using the Interactive Model

of Qualitative Data Analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

The data analysis was based on the study themes: context, supervision, examination and oral defence of the PhD award in Kenya.

The process entailed drawing on institutional policy data concerning

the PhD from 10 Kenyan universities. Second, questionnaires were used to collect data relating to the PhD award process from four

perspectives
Supervisors ( n=50, 20 women & 25 men ) Candidates ( n=52, 32 women & 20 men ) External Examiners (n=6, 2 women & 4men ) Examination Board members ( n=4, 1 man & 3women)

Methodology
The four questionnaires were tailored to the respondent groups, although the format of the questionnaires was broadly the same. Information was ascertained relating to: background ( gender, age, experience); selection of supervisors; the supervision; selection of examiners; oral defence panel selection; vivas procedures; outcomes; perceptions of the purpose (s) of the viva; and for candidates, their expectations and experiences of the PhD process. The questionnaires to candidates focussed primarily on their own PhD path. The questionnaires to the lecturers focused primarily on the PhD that they had supervised and examined most recently in Kenya.
1/2/2014

Findings (Context )
Despite the institutionalisation of PhD training in Kenyan Universities, and the apparent serious attention for the quality of supervision, PhD studies still face many problems in most of the universities (Kiamba, For example, the percentage of non-completion is regarded as too high there is a very long process towards completion, often more than six years, instead of the expected four years. Furthermore fifty percent (50%) of the candidates and the supervisors identified the fact that there was no contact with peers and the existence of parochial local research cultures as a running impediment. Lack of motivation, psychological stress due to isolation, feelings of uselessness and lack of possibilities to participate in a vibrant research culture was captured for both lecturers and students at forty and seventy two percent (40% &72%) respectively. Systemic issues also affect the quality of the awards of the PhD in universities in Kenya. The academic staff raised the issue of uncontrolled growth of doctoral student numbers and the corresponding lack of supervision capacity. The students further felt that supervisors did not give due attention to planning and keeping within time limits and exhibited lack of support for publishing beyond the PhD Thesis. All these concerns and shortcomings no doubt bring to surface the need to amplify the quality imperatives in the award of the PhD qualification. It was stated that the supervisor training was nonexistent, The examination board members said that appointed supervisors seldom have a conceptual map of what constitutes acceptable supervision.

Findings (Supervision and

Examinations)
Forty eight percent (48%) of the PhD candidates interviewed regard the PhD period of their life as a lonely and stressful episode, and without a mentor with whom to discuss problems. Both the students and lecturers admit that there is a host of supervision problems. Lack of a criteria for selecting and training supervisors meetings were inadequate and lacked depth, and often there were no regular performance and progress reports. lack of adequate research funding, and financial arrangements are unclear or non-existent. PhD supervision was a stressful and frustrating experience coupled with the fact that completed PhDs often have a low utilization return and so may be regarded as a rather wasteful way of spending research time and money. poor research design, lack of focus and inadequate conceptualization of the research question by both parties. strained relationship, and not aware of others working in the same field of studies as one of the constraints. Indeed it is reasonable to postulate that supervisors themselves are often the products of poor supervision, and do not therefore hold experience of what constitutes competent supervision.

Findings (Admission and method of study)

Most students have admitted have degrees below second class lower division) Inadequate research background and lack of training in methodological and writing skills (inadequate Bachelors and Masters training) were seen by eighty eight percent (88%) of both the ongoing and graduated students as a major area of difficulty.

problematic research facilities (time, office, computer, assistance, flexibility in rules, under-funding of essential tasks), many competing tasks (teaching, consultancies, family life) and bad planning along with poor time management as hindrances.

Sixty three percent (63%) of the supervisors conceded that there were major problems with writing academic English on the part of the students. In addition, sixty four percent (64%) of both ongoing and graduated PhD candidates complained about infrequent meetings with supervisors as well as not enough specific knowledge among supervisors with regard to the candidates research topic.

Findings (Defense)
o Kenyan universities vary in degree of openness of the PhD oral defence. four have public defences, five have private or relatively private ones.

o not all Kenyan dissertation defences are public. As a result, students at universities conducting private dissertation defenses may be less informed about this examination than those at universities having a more open system. o the universities differ in details of the criteria for the choice of the external examiner, especially regarding impartiality. o At four universities (Kenyatta, Nairobi JKUAT & Maseno), the external examiners opinion on the dissertation significantly influences the committees final decision. o In contrast, the external examiner seems to have less power at Moi and Egerton. At some of the universities, the external examiners opinion is not permitted to unduly influence the committees decision.

Discussion and conclusion

procedure that revolves around the selection of new doctoral students (CHE 2006) needs attention. From our findings it is evident that admission criteria in most of the Kenyan Universities is not stringent resulting in the admission of candidates for the PhD lacking the ambition for withstanding the rigours of doctoral studies (Adu and Orivel 2006). problems of supervision are compounded when the PhD student is clearly not well-suited for advanced study at the level of the doctorate. adopt as a best practice by Kenyan universities the use of a combination of personal interviews, academic records and samples of formal writing in making selection decisions, so as to bring into the supervision pool students who are supervisable (Jibril 2006).

Discussion and Conclusion

set up the criteria for the selection of supervisors, for poor supervisors have been seen to be a major factor in student completion rates, the quality of the thesis and the overall supervision experience by student and supervisor alike. provide formal training for new and promising supervisors on the technical, ethical, personal, legal, administrative and professional aspects of supervision be taken on board by the Kenyan Universities. it should be standard procedure that faculty requires the defense of a full PhD proposal at the end of the first academic year, this event would then determine whether the student will be able to continue or not in the PhD programme; it will also bring to the fore problems of inadequate supervision (Shabani 2006).

Discussion and Conclusion

having universities prepare an updateable Handbook for Supervision within the relevant department or faculty, so that every supervisor - and student - is aware of, and familiar with, the often complex administrative regulations, requirements and deadlines that accompany this process should be considered by the Kenyan universities (Brossard and Foko 2006). use a system of mentors to guide new PhD candidates (Materu 2006). It will be important to have a requirement of at least two international examiners to review and evaluate a completed thesis; these examiner reports should form part of the annual evaluation of the capacity of supervisors and of quality supervision within a School or Faculty or university. A thesis must be satisfactory as regards literary style and presentation. It must show that candidates have understood the nature and purpose of the investigations, are sufficiently acquainted with the relevant literature, have mastered the methods of research appropriate to the topic and their application, and are capable of assessing the significance of their findings. A Doctor of Philosophy thesis must constitute original research and is expected to make an original contribution to the field (Maxwell, 2005).

Quality is the Sum of Many Parts

Thank You!